Daily Mail article on “Minor attracted persons”

[Siablue]

This was in the Mail today. I wonder if the journalist reads this board.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8466899/Paedophiles-rebrand-minor-attracted-persons-chilling-online-propaganda-drive.html

Someone in comments mentioned that they got banned on Twitter for challenging someone about posting about being attracted to children

soph88888 I don’t support pedophiles either. What I do care about is the impact that pedophiles trying to piggyback on the LGBT movement is going to have on innocent people. This did happen to my uncle in the 70s and he is an entirely innocent person.

Safeguarding protects everyone not just children. It is not hard to imagine a scenario where innocent people are targeted by vigilantes because they associate being gay with being a pedophile.

Piggybacking:

LGBT Youth Scotland chief exec:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-15790605

Peter Tatchell:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6374467/Peter-Tatchell-forced-deny-advocating-paedophilia-1997-letter.html

Chairman of Pride Scotia:
www.pressreader.com/uk/scottish-daily-mail/20140621/281681137957838

@ComeBy

The age of consent and paedophilia are different things.

Both important, and some links.

But paedophilia is sexual attraction to pre pubescent children.

However, we can easily see that the Jensen / Harrop exchange could fuel ‘MAP’ apologists with undeveloped thinking skills.

I don't think it is. For example Prince Andrew has lost his job etc for allegedly sleeping with a 17yo. Yet the song "she was just 17, well you know what I mean" plays on radio. It seems on this thread that 16 is the age of consent? There are real inconsistencies in it all.

Of course paedophilia is disgusting but while we're discussing the late teen years I have always wondered about that one and it seems out of countenance with definitions on this thread.
It also is out of countenance of society (uk) expectations post 15yo,...the amount of my mum friends in real life that expressed disapproval that my then 15,16,17yo DD wasn't 'living it up'..every time I met up with anyone they brought it up.

@Bookoffacts it wasn't just for sleeping with a 17 yo. That 17 yo didn't meet him in normal circumstances, started a relationship with him etc. That would be bad enough morally. The issue is that that 17 yo was trafficked and forced to have sex/raped.

There's no age of consent to being trafficked/forced into prostitution.

What I find murkies the waters(and I'm guilty of it myself) is dragging teens ,especially older ones in a discussion about pedophiles.

By definition pedophiles abuse children that are too young in nearly every country to consent to anything. We're talking babies to 11/12 yos max. There's no misunderstandings or confusion there.

@hedgehogger1

Why only the Daily Mail? I wish some other media outlets would pick this up. We need a panarama episode on it

I am also astonished that this is not all over all of the papers. The amount of evidence is ridiculous of increasingly open paedophilia being supported by major social media platforms. They'll ban you for misgendering but you are absolutely fine to put on your profile that you have a sexual preference for 8-11 year olds and use easily searchable MAP hashtags. How is that not front page news?

Surely, from a purely monetary point of view, which always matters to papers, getting attention on this would drive traffic to the their sites? Are they afraid of being punished by social media and traffic reducing perhaps?

So, James Rennie could well be out and about by now.

I find it terribly worrying that twitter allows messaging between people who identify as MAPs and actual minors.

The PIE / Pride links are there for all to see on Companies House
(look up who owns a company called "The Reform Party")

I am also astonished that this is not all over all of the papers. The amount of evidence is ridiculous of increasingly open paedophilia being supported by major social media platforms. They'll ban you for misgendering but you are absolutely fine to put on your profile that you have a sexual preference for 8-11 year olds and use easily searchable MAP hashtags. How is that not front page news?

Because that would mean that women/feminists were right. And every single one of them will have to own their very public abuse of women who warned them that these monsters were using the LGBT as a shield. Many many gay men also spoke up furious that all the hard work to change minds of those who thought being gay meant they were predators was being undone by these creeps. And they too were blocked and booted off social media.

I await the comments/articles that will now blame women for not saying or doing anything.

Well we have the receipts.

Even now just days after the asda debacle the NAHT partnered with DM.

Stonewall isn't promoting MAP as being "valid" is it? Talk of a flag alarmed me. Stonewall do love a flag.

What I find murkies the waters(and I'm guilty of it myself) is dragging teens ,especially older ones in a discussion about pedophiles

It’s probably because the majority of people find hebephilia every bit as immoral as paedophilia, and therefore conflate them.
I agree that the waters are muddled because with teens they can be ‘legal’ and still look like twelve year olds, but most people will class it all as the same thing, And see the men as paedophiles

I don't think protecting and enforcing ideas regarding consent of 12 year old Nigerian girls was part of our colonial past somehow....

@TorkTorkBam

Stonewall isn't promoting MAP as being "valid" is it? Talk of a flag alarmed me. Stonewall do love a flag.

Promoting it would still be considered a step too far by Stonewall I think. Too blatant.

Stonewall isn't promoting MAP as being "valid" is it? Talk of a flag alarmed me. Stonewall do love a flag

No. But then they havent withdrawn guidance formed while a certain person was on the advisory board either.

Nor have they rethought their slogan " acceptance without exception " when a peadophile got released after claiming to be a woman taking oestrogen ( not full time mind as they still wanted their erection ) and the system decided the risk was reduced enough to release them now they were a woman.

And we all know JY is protected even though they are blatantly predatory because they play the trans card every bloody time and canada well you know.....

The issue is not so much people promoting it. No one needs to do that there are sadly thousands of these monsters everywhere.

But there are an awful lot if organisations who refuse to engage in any kind of conversation that would allow people to point out where loopholes can be exploited. Too many afraid that if they have aligned themselves with other causes they that will get them labelled anti this or phobic that.

The adults seem to have left the building

I said long ago that the shit would only hit the fan around the whole area of self id, women’s spaces and sports and institutional capture by pedophiles (I’m not using some cuddly acronym) when it was brought to the attention of “normal” people. It’s starting now. They thought they could hide in plain site until everything was locked up tight. What they forgot was the general populations hatred for pedophiles. (Unless it’s on pornhub) It’s disappointing that it’s the Mail that has covered it, but hopefully it will stir up the red tops too and by extension the rest of MSM.

ListeningQuietly who are the Reform Party?

Siablu
who are the reform party
Good question and its still being looked at.

Farage announced last year that he would relaunch the Brexit Party as the Reform party and that company as of course the Brexit party was really a business was set up at the time ....

A few weeks back there was a FB launch of the Reform party which went a bit sideways when the links to the company were found
and the interesting background of the director was checked out

But the fact that a former PIE member runs the companies that run lots of pride events is a matter of interest I'd say.

But the fact that a former PIE member runs the companies that run lots of pride events is a matter of interest I'd say

I would say the police need to have a bit of a re think too. About where the boundary is with regards to flaunting fetish play in public including around children- like when police posed with those pvc/rubber clad pups/furries at a pride march. What's kink shaming and what comes under public indecency.

Well that is interesting. What is Farage’s position on trans issues? There are some strange bedfellows (in more ways than one) in this whole situation.

Siablue
I suspect Farage has no view or care at all
other than - like most rightwing politicians - he loves watching the Left eat itself with identity politics

Of course, whenever you mention the links between Stonewall, Pride and PIE/MAP, you get shouted down and accused of suggesting that gay men are paedophiles, as used to happen back in the 50s and 60s. This accusation is a very good intimidatory tactic.

Pride has become a fetish fest and seeing the police joining in, and small children being exploited, is nauseating.

Pointing out that you have no issues with your gay friends/colleagues/relatives cuts no ice with the accusers.

I was banned from Twitter last year for disagreeing with a pedophile who told me he was not a danger to children and that his family fully support his desire for a fulfilling relation with a child.
Don't get ne wrong I did say I hoped a natural disaster befelled them all but I don't think its right that I was banned for that while the pervert is allowed to say he wants sex with children.

Of course, whenever you mention the links between Stonewall, Pride and PIE/MAP, you get shouted down and accused of suggesting that gay men are paedophiles, as used to happen back in the 50s and 60s. This accusation is a very good intimidatory tactic

And thanks to this fact, ( and the majority of people I would assume do not believe that gay men are predatory), it's the one thing that is stopping people from speaking up.

The "oh shit" moment will come if these lobby groups are successful and help take down any bid to stop children accessing puberty blockers and hormones before 16/18. Because this is what happens when safeguarding is framed as a personal attack, you get people actively fighting against it. And if as a result children are deemed as capable of consenting to a lifetime of medication and infertility as children then you will have trouble convincing people they cant consent to anything else. There are plenty already active on twitter trying to link blockers to gillick competence and underage girls accessing birth control/abortion.